State extends comment period for climate change plan

The state is extending the public comment period for the its draft interim plan on cutting greenhouse gas emissions and responding to the effects of climate change.

The Washington Policy Center, a conservative think tank, was among those asking for more time. From Todd Myers, environmental director for WPC, in a press release:

“The report calls climate change ‘one of the most critical, if not the defining, issues of the 21st century.’ Such a critical, costly and potentially transformational policy deserves more than 21 days of review during the Christmas and New Year holiday season.”

The report was issued Dec. 21 and comments are now due Jan. 22 (the original deadline was Jan. 10). It presents 35 ideas for reducing carbon dioxide. The advisory team that produced the report is supposed to come up with more specific recommendations on implementing the best ideas first (read my story on this).

I’ve been trying to get a handle on the matter of costs associated with the plan (see this blog). The report concluded that reducing greenhouse gas emissions could save the state close to $1 billion by 2020. Really? A billion bucks in the black? I asked Michael Lazarus with Stockholm Environment Institute US, the group consulting on the project, to explain.

The source of that figure is available, he said, but requires digging into supporting documents (you have to look up the final recommendations from each of the five technical working groups, linked to here).

But in short, there were items that cost money — paying for new rapid transit, for example — and items that saved money — a biggie being the savings you get from investing in energy efficiency versus what’s spent on additional power.

Lazarus cautioned that this is an interim report, and that exactly how the CO2 reductions would play out needs more work. Thus, he said that $1 billion figure is very, very approximate. It could save that much, or even cost that much.

“We’re going to have to pay something to address this problem,” Lazarus warned.

Many folks urging action predict that it’ll cost less to slow the warming than waiting and responding to the damage it causes — flooding, drought, wild fires, etc. Some argue that there are moral and ethical reasons to act considering that poor populations will bear the brunt of the suffering.

“It’s an investment worth making,” Lazarus said. “In the end, the state of Washington comes out ahead… Studies like this show it’s not going to break the bank to do it.”